Text

Stone & Webster, Inc., Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00005-0, NTTF 2.3 Seismic Peer Review Supplementary Report, Oconee Nuclear Station Unit 1.
	ML13192A157
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	05/15/2013
From:	Baughman P, Bushnell G, Keiser R; ARES Corp, Stone & Webster
To:	; Duke Energy Carolinas, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	1457690202-R-M-00005-0
	Download: ML13192A157 (15)
	v • d • e

Attachment 7 N Stone & Webster, Inc. JO No.: 1457690202 Doc. No.: 1457690202-R-M-00005-0 Revision: 0 TECHNICAL REPORT Client: Duke Energy, Oconee Unit: I Location: South Carolina, USA NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 Prepared for:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Prepared by: Stone & Webster, Inc. and ARES Corporation May 15, 2013 QA CATEGORY III 5/15/2013 Peer Reviewer: Paul D. Baughman, P.E. Date ARES Corporation

'ýZR Peer Reviewer: George Bushnell, P.E.

5/15/2013 Date ý'RES Approval: C.M. Conselman, P.E.,

5/15/2013 Date Stone & Webster, Inc. (A CB&I Company) Project Manager 5/15/2013 5/15/2013 Peer -evieKe.rt K er, P.E. Date Stone & Webster, Inc. (A CB&I Date Duke Energy Company) Approval: Anthony F. Fazio Project Manager

C' 0 1" 1A IETION Attachment 7 to Enclosure la Page I of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013 Revision Description Reason for Affected Pages Rev. Revision Change Description (Page/Sec./Para.) Date 0 Original Issue N/A N/A 5/15/2013

_ _ I _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ I _ I _

(2RPI7ONPage Hi Attachment 7 to Enclosure I a Page 2 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT I May 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 IN TRO D U CT IO N ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 .0 SC O PE ............................................................................................................................................. 1 3.0 MET H O D O LO G Y .......................................................................................................................... I 4.0 PER SO N NE L .................................................................................................................................. 2 5.0 SELECTION OF THE SSCs INCLUDED ON THE SWEL .................................................... 2 6.0 SEISMIC WALKDOWNS AND AREA WALK-BYS .............................................................. 3 7.0 LICENSING BASIS REVIEWS ................................................................................................ 5 8.0 DECISIONS ON ENTERING POTENTIALLY ADVERSE SEISMIC CONDITIONS INTO THE CAP PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 5 9.0 SUBMITTAL REPORT ............................................................................................................ 5 10.0 C ON CL U SION S .............................................................................................................................. 5 11.0 REFERE N C E S ................................................................................................................................ 5 Appendices Appendix A: Summary of Peer Review of Final SWCs and AWCs for Inaccessible Items ............ 5 Pages M (Page iii Attachment 7 to Enclosure 1a Page 3 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013 Acronyms ARES ARES Corporation AWC Area Walk-By Checklist CAP Corrective Action Program EPRI Electric Power Research Institute IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTTF Near-Term Task Force ONS Oconee Nuclear Station PIP Problem Investigation Process SCE Seismic Capability Engineer SQUG Seismic Qualification Utility Group SSC Structure, System and Component SWC Seismic Walkdown Checklist SWE Seismic Walkdown Engineer SWEL Seismic Walkdown Equipment List SWI Stone & Webster, Inc., a CB&I Company O A Page iv Attachment 7 to Enclosure 1a Page 4 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidancefor Resolution of FukushimaNear-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, was issued in June 2012. This document provides guidance and procedures to perform seismic walkdowns as required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) 50.54(f) letter regarding Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) Recommendation 2.3: Seismic. The EPRI guidance covers selection of personnel; selection of a sample of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that represent diversity of component types and ensures inclusion of components from critical systems/functions; conduct of the walkdowns; evaluation of potentially adverse conditions against the plant seismic licensing basis; peer review; Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) vulnerabilities; and reporting requirements. It was intended that all U.S. nuclear power plants utilize this guidance document in meeting the requirements of the NRC 50.54(f) letter.

Duke Energy contracted with Stone & Webster, Inc., a CB&I Company (SWI) / ARES Corporation (ARES) Team to perform the NTTF 2.3 peer review at the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS). A peer review of the NTTF 2.3 seismic walkdowns of Units 1, 2 and 3 was conducted in September 2012 and documented in SWI/ARES Technical Report 145 7690202-R-M-0004, NTTF 2.3 Seismic PeerReview Report, Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3. There were no outstanding comments from the peer review that required Duke Energy Action. At that time, some items in Unit 1 had not been walked down due to being inaccessible during plant operation. Walkdown of the Unit 1 inaccessible items was deferred to the Unit 1 refueling outage scheduled for the spring of 2013.

This report documents the supplementary peer review performed in May 2013. The supplementary peer review covered the walkdown of inaccessible items at Unit I performed by Duke Energy during the Unit 1 refueling outage. Walkdowns of inaccessible items for Units 2 and 3 are scheduled for outages in 2014.

2.0 SCOPE The scope of this supplementary effort was to perform the NTTF 2.3 Seismic Peer Review of the inaccessible items at ONS Unit 1, in accordance with the guidelines in Section 6, PeerReview, of EPRI 1025286. It is intended that the information contained herein will be utilized by Duke Energy as part of its overall NTTF 2.3 final submittal report to be delivered to the NRC by July 1, 2013.

3.0 METHODOLOGY The SWI/ARES methodology conforms to the guidance in Section 6 of EPRI 1025286. The Peer Review Team consisted of three individuals, all of whom have seismic engineering experience as it applies to nuclear power plants. These individuals participated in the peer review of each of the activities. The Peer Review Team for the supplementary peer review consisted of the same individuals that performed the September 2012 peer review.

The peer review process for the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL) development and the seismic walkdowns was documented in SWI/ARES Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00004, NTTF M Page 1 Attachment 7 to Enclosure 1a Page 5 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT I May 2013 2.3 Seismic PeerReview Report, Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3. The SWEL did not change from the time of the September 2012 peer review, other than some equipment substitutions due to accessibility. The Peer Review Team reviewed these substitutions.

The peer review process for the seismic walkdowns and walk-bys of the inaccessible items consisted of conducting a final review of the completed documentation. The other, in-process, steps in the review methodology described in SWI/ARES Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00004 were not considered necessary since the Duke Energy seismic walkdown team leader was included in the September 2012 peer review of in-process activities.

The peer review process for the licensing basis evaluations and the decisions for entering potentially adverse conditions into the Corrective Action Program (CAP) consisted of reviewing all of the decisions on potentially adverse seismic conditions resulting from the walkdown of the inaccessible items. The peer review process for the submittal report consisted of reviewing the draft submittal revision prepared by Oconee Design Engineering for licensing review.

4.0 PERSONNEL The ONS Peer Review Team for the supplementary peer review consisted of the following individuals.

As noted above, these are the same individuals who performed the September 2012 peer review.

Paul Baughman, P.E., ARES Corporation, Team Leader. Mr. Baughman is a licensed structural engineer with over 40 years of experience in seismic engineering for nuclear power stations.

Mr. Baughman is a subject matter expert and trainer for the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG). Mr. Baughman has performed seismic assessment activities for ONS and is familiar with the ONS seismic licensing basis. Mr. Baughman has performed many seismic margin assessments and seismic probabilistic risk assessments, and is familiar with systems modeling and development of safe shutdown equipment lists.

George Bushnell, P.E., Stone & Webster, Inc. Mr. Bushnell is a licensed mechanical engineer with over 40 years of experience in engineering qualification of electrical and mechanical equipment for nuclear power stations. Mr. Bushnell is a qualified SQUG Seismic Capability Engineer (SCE) and company specialist for design and qualification of ASME III components.

Robert Keiser, P.E., Duke Energy. Mr. Keiser is a licensed professional engineer in North and South Carolina with over 20 years of experience in the seismic qualification of electrical equipment for Duke Energy's McGuire, Catawba, and Oconee Nuclear Stations. Mr. Keiser received training as a SQUG SCE and was involved with the SQUG effort at Oconee and the IPEEE efforts at all three stations.

5,0 SELECTION OF THE SSCs INCLUDED ON THE SWEL Peer review of the SWEL is described in SWI/ARES Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00004.

During the Unit 1 walkdown of inaccessible items, three equipment items could not be walked down due to personnel access restrictions (radiation and safety). Three different items were substituted. The Page 2 AM (1t Attachment 7 to Enclosure 1a Page 6 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013 substitutions are described in Section 4 of the Duke Energy revised submittal report. It is stated that the substitutions do not affect the sample considerations described in Section 3 of the submittal report. The Peer Review Team reviewed each of the substitutions and agreed with the conclusion that the substitutions did not affect the sample considerations.

Duke Energy did not update the Unit 1 SWEL to reflect these substitutions. Since the sample considerations are still as described in the submittal report and the substitutions are also described, the Peer Review Team concurred that it was not necessary to update the SWEL.

6.0 SEISMIC WALKDOWNS AND AREA WALK-BYS The inaccessible equipment items and areas to be walked down were listed in Appendix C of SWI/ARES Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00001, Seismic Walkdown Reportfor Duke Energy's Oconee NuclearStation Unit 1. The walkdowns consist of two parts: equipment-specific seismic walkdowns and area walk-bys. The specific instructions for each part are delineated in EPRI 1025286.

The walkdowns were performed by Duke Energy. The walkdowns were documented on Area Walk-By Checklists (AWCs) and Seismic Walkdown Checklists (SWCs), and are included in Attachment 7 of the revised submittal report.

Seismic walkdowns of specific items focused on identifying adverse anchorage conditions, adverse seismic interactions, and other adverse seismic conditions that could challenge the seismic adequacy of a SWEL item.

Anchorage was examined for degraded, nonconforming or unanalyzed conditions. This included visual inspection of the anchorage and verification of anchorage condition. The visual inspections looked for bent, broken, missing or loose hardware; corrosion that is more than mild surface oxidation; visible cracks in the concrete near anchors; and other potentially adverse seismic conditions. This did not apply to line-mounted items.

Anchorage configuration was verified to be consistent with the existing plant documentation for a portion of the equipment with anchorage. The anchorage configuration verification must be done for at least 50% of the non-line-mounted SWEL items. As noted in SWI/ARES Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00001, the percentage for Unit 1 exceeds the EPRI 1025286 requirement.

The area adjacent to and surrounding the SWEL item was inspected for nearby SSCs that could be seismic interaction hazards due to proximity, failure, and falling, or insufficient flexibility of attached lines and cables. Detailed guidance on seismic spatial interactions is given in Appendix D of EPRI 1025286.

The SWEL item was also examined to see if there were any other potentially adverse seismic conditions besides anchorage and seismic interaction. These could include other degraded conditions, loose or missing subcomponent fasteners, unusual large or heavy subcomponents, doors or panels not latched or fastened, or any other condition which might be seismically adverse. Where possible, cabinets and enclosures were opened for examination of internals.

M )Page 3 Attachment 7 to Enclosure I a Page 7 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013 Area walk-bys consisted of examining the general area surrounding the specific SWEL items for potentially adverse seismic conditions. The area examined included either the entire room enclosing the SWEL item or at least 35 feet in any direction. The examination looked for degraded anchorage conditions of equipment in the area; significantly degraded equipment; poorly supported cable/conduit raceways, HVAC ducting, or piping; and unsecured temporary equipment that could cause seismic interactions (seismic housekeeping concerns). The area walk-by included looking for potential seismic interactions from flooding, spray, or fire. These potential seismic interactions are described in Section 4 of EPRI 1025286.

The Duke Energy engineers who performed the walkdowns of the inaccessible items were:

Russell Childs - Duke Energy, Walkdown Team Lead

Adam Johnson - Duke Energy, Walkdown Team Member Mr. Childs participated in the previous NTTF 2.3 seismic walkdowns. Mr. Johnson did not participate in the previous NTTF 2.3 seismic walkdowns. The Peer Review Team reviewed their qualifications and verified that they meet the Seismic Walkdown Engineer (SWE) requirements in EPRI 1025286. Both attended the SQUG Seismic Walkdown Screening and Seismic Evaluation Training Course (for Seismic Capability Engineers). Their qualifications are included in the revised Duke Energy submittal report.

The Peer Review Team interviewed the Duke Energy engineers to assess their working synergy as well as individual capabilities and knowledge. Discussion provided positive indication that the walkdown personnel had adequate experience and training to perform walkdown and walk-by activities in compliance with the EPRI Seismic Walkdown Guidance. They displayed knowledge of the primary objectives of the walkdowns, appropriate levels of dialog between themselves to reach common agreement without excessive discussion, and adequate objectivity in identification of significant discrepancies between as-designed and as-found conditions.

The September 2012 peer review included review of in-process AWCs and SWCs. Group meetings were held with the SWEs to address the peer review comments. Mr. Childs attended those meetings.

The Peer Review Team concluded that the walkdown personnel had adequate experience and training to perform walkdown and walk-by activities in compliance with the EPRI Seismic Walkdown Guidance.

The Peer Review Team reviewed 100% of the final SWCs and AWCs of the inaccessible items. This is more than the 10% sample that the EPRI guidance requires. The review is summarized in Appendix A of this report. The table in Appendix A lists the 22 SWCs and 12 AWCs reviewed.

The Peer Review Team concluded that the walkdowns of the inaccessible items were conducted in accordance with the EPRI guidance.

M (19 IO Page 4 Attachment 7 to Enclosure I a Page 8 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013 7.0 LICENSING BASIS REVIEWS All potentially adverse conditions require a licensing basis review in accordance with the EPRI guidance. For the ONS Unit 1 inaccessible items, no potentially adverse seismic conditions were identified. Therefore, there were no licensing basis reviews.

Although not considered potentially adverse seismic conditions, two conditions - a temporary electrical cable support specification non-compliance and an editorial error on a drawing - were identified for further action. These were entered into the CAP via the Problem Investigation Process (PIP) to enable tracking to closure. The items were entered into two PIPs: 0-13-04143 and 0-13-03357. The Peer Review Team reviewed the PIPs and agreed that neither condition was a potentially adverse seismic condition.

8.0 DECISIONS ON ENTERING POTENTIALLY ADVERSE SEISMIC CONDITIONS INTO THE CAP PROCESS As noted above, there were no potentially adverse seismic conditions identified for the Unit 1 inaccessible items. However, two items that were not potentially adverse seismic conditions were entered into the CAP via PIP for further action. Since there were no potentially adverse seismic conditions, it was not necessary to perform extent of condition evaluations.

The Peer Review Team concludes that the decisions on entering potentially adverse conditions into the CAP process were in accordance with the EPRI guidance.

9.0 SUBMITTAL REPORT The Peer Review Team reviewed a draft of the revised submittal report for ONS Unit I provided by Mr. Childs on April 30, 2013. The report contains the required sections and discussions. The Peer Review Team had no technical comments on the draft revised submittal report. The Peer Review Team concludes that the revised submittal report is in accordance with the EPRI guidance.

10.0 CONCLUSION

S The conclusion of the supplemental peer review is that the ONS NTTF 2.3 seismic walkdown for the Unit 1 inaccessible items has been conducted in accordance with the guidance in EPRI 1025286. There were no unresolved comments from the September 2012 peer review.

11.0 REFERENCES

Duke Energy, FukushimaNear-Term Task Force (N7TF) Recommendation 2.3."NRC Submittal Report for Seismic Walkdowns, Oconee Unit 1, Revision 1, DRAFT, April 30, 2013.

EPRI 1025286, Seismic Walkdown Guidancefor Resolution of FukushimaNear-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.3: Seismic, June 2012, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

M (Page 5 Attachment 7 to Enclosure 1a Page 9 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013 I

Letter, E. Leeds and M. Johnson (NRC) to All Power Reactor Licensees et al., "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident," Enclosure 2.3, "Recommendation 2.3: Seismic," dated March 12, 2012.

SWI/ARES Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00001-1, Seismic Walkdown Reportfor Duke Energy's Oconee NuclearStation Unit 1, Revision 1, November 12, 2012.

SWI/ARES Technical Report 1457690202-R-M-00004-0, NTTF 2.3 Seismic PeerReview Report, Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3, Revision 0, November 16, 2012.

_(19) Page 6 Page 10 of 15 Attachment Enclosure I1a to Enclosure Attachment 77 to a Page 10 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 REPORT, OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 May 2013 APPENDIX A

SUMMARY

OF PEER REVIEW OF FINAL SWCs AND AWCs FOR INACCESSIBLE ITEMS m (i Page A- I Attachment 7 to Enclosure 1a Page 11 of 15

NTTF 2.3 SEISMIC PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT Report No. 1457690202-R-M-00005, Rev. 0 OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT I May 2013 Walkdown Team Members: Russell P. Childs, Duke Energy Adam T. Johnson, Duke Energy Summary of Peer Review of Final SWCs and AWCs for Inaccessible Item (4 sheets)

EDB ED Equipment 50% Non 50% Line Overall Team Comments Class Anchorage Anchorage Mounted Status Area Walkdown (Aux Bldg roof, El 809).

AB40 Childs/ 1. Walkdown centered around Main Steam Safety Relief Unit 1 Aux Bldg Johnson Valves.

2. No adverse condition noted.

RB01 Area Walkdown (RB room B, El 777).

Childs/ 1. Walkdown centered around level transmitter/makeup Unit I Reactor Y Johnson PUMP.